In the previous post I mentioned that I will show you how to be truly subjective with the concept of God, but I did not mention that there is an objective caveat. Whenever you are shaping a conceptual area in a particular way, that area enters the state of synchrony with other participants and hence manifests objectively, i.e., in reality. As it happens with science, so it can happen with religion, but in a way that is more grounded than it is today. The new area of my philosophy that I would like to introduce today is theology, and specifically physically-conditioned, subjective theology.
For the purpose of following discussions, I wanted to share my own conception of God. I do not want to explain it in words but first only show it. It is an illustration (not for purposes of worship) that geometrically simplifies my conception of God, including its relation to us. This should be taken as an example, with nothing taken literally as a solid belief. It’s only my idea based on what I have conceptually integrated (and not even completely at that). Thoroughly realizing a (non-metaphysical) integration like that is impossible at our state of development. But the more we develop our knowledge, the more I would learn, the more my ideas would grow and interconnect with others’ ideas. Basically, this is an example of a visual way of thinking about and believing in God(s).
Atheist or theist?
I am well aware that Rand was an atheist, yet she was always aligned with theists. She recommended “the three A’s”: Aristotle (theist), Aquinas (theist), and Ayn Rand (who would have accepted their reasoning about God). While most stopped grasping the logical meaning of “God” (or equivalent) from the Gospel of John, Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, or Spinoza’s Ethics, we now have another way to remedy the problem of atheism. Instead of taking God as (to you) a meaningless “objective” abstraction, we must take Him as a meaningful subjective imagining.
Some may believe God to be Lucifer, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even a pink fairy, and as long as these beliefs are genuine, that is, they are acted upon as faiths, I have no problem with them. A genuine belief implies one’s defense of it, one’s own rhetoric of explaining the faith, one’s passionate desire to submit one’s whole mind, soul, and spirit to one’s faith rather than be changed into someone else’s faith. However, when digging deeper into the substance of the aforementioned beliefs, we may find them atheistic, having a sole purpose to thwart a genuine belief in God. This battle of beliefs worsened after the arrival of Jesus. The atheistic pagans and theists today are fighting in explicit and in subtle ways throughout out societies. In order to help us understand details of this conflict, we need to first compare the positions of objective and subjective beliefs in God.
Oh no, not “God” again!
If you have an objective concept of God, you do not necessarily have a subjective one.
For example, if [On the other hand,] Immanuel Kant (considered by some [falsely] to be an atheist) had a subjective concept of God, [but] he would have mentioned it! [didn’t have an objective one.] He would [did not] have to analyze d the concept of God like Aquinas and Spinoza did. But Kant covered up his deficiency and lack of subjective understanding of God with his objective postulate and ethical formulation (which was grounded on idealists’ objective understanding of “God”). [Living at the time when idealists were theists (objective theologists), Kant was careful not to describe his subjective theology until the end of his third and last Critique because he might have understood that by this action he was separating the concept of “God” from philosophy and transcending objective theologists’ views. His discovery and achievement was truly unprecedented in our era, indeed like the second Copernican revolution.]
I think that not having a subjective, personal concept of God is worse than only having an objective one. If you believe in something subjectively, you can fight for it, like Objectivists do for their conviction about existence because each of them has their own understanding of what “existence” is.
Besides, how do you formulate the concept of God? Don’t you first start with your own subjectively defined belief in God before you move on to read and understand what others have said about it? There are numerous authorities on the concept of God and other intellectuals with their own definitions (such as materialist Vadim Zeland [whose subjective theology is similar to Kant’s]), so it helps to differentiate them.
I think the latter “objective” ideas about God from authorities, whether idealists, such as Augustine of Hippo and Muhammad, or integrators, such as John the Apostle, Aquinas, and Spinoza, are an addition to what a theist may already think personally. Some of these experts had to have their own firsthand concepts of God before they shared them with others. Some of their ideas were grounded in subjectivity before they were formulated as objectively understood theologies.
I would rather like a person who thinks that God is a pink fairy and believe strongly in it (like a child who believes in Santa) than have one who thinks God is
a mere[ly] unknowable giver of moral law an empty word. If you think that God is a mere symbol or an abstract idea, then you may think you should simply do good to people ([without understanding the intrinsic value of] practical reason) and ignoring the rest, such as done by those who participate in The Clergy Project. But no, this is by far not enough! No wonder that Carl Jung wrote in his essays that God as the “idea of an all-powerful divine Being is present everywhere, unconsciously if not consciously, because it is an archetype,” but it would help if you let yourself try to see it “in the psyche [as] some superior power” [the same as taught by Kant].
Do you agree or disagree? Please share your comments below.
Finally, what do you think my illustration means? If you have an answer, please keep it to yourself, but if you are lost, I don’t want to keep you waiting, so keep on reading.
The circles are similar, yet different. Like Man and Woman, Father and Mother, Yin and Yang. Of course, there is no religion, except perhaps Manichaeism, that reminds of this. Yet, my concept is way more complex. I also describe in Kniga how the two can be integrated into a Multi-God, the balanced directions following my Model and its unknown (85%) inverse.
God is the Source of the Cosmos. The Cosmos is our Universe. Anti-God is the Anti-Source of the Chaos. The Chaos is an Anti-Universe. Directions are either toward Anti-God through Nonexistence or toward God: Irrational versus Rational movements. We are within the Cosmos, not the Chaos. Thus, we are close to God. Irrational movements are directed away from your local Source. God is our Source. We are a part of the Cosmos and live within it.
To relate it to contemporary cosmology, the Cosmos is dark matter, the body of God. This “God” is a religious concept out of which I would like to make a science. In other words, it is a religious but not a purely metaphysical concept, metaphysical only in the physically-conditioned, “meta” sense of Aristotle. God is very much physical and could not be in any other way. I relate Him to (some locus of) the gravitational effects we observe and call dark energy. In contrast, a purely metaphysical “God” is a mere word.
Chaos is, as far as we know right now, only reflected through the Cosmos on the quantum level. As you ascend above the quantum level, there is a pattern of greater ordering of things. Quantum theory is useful here but not the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. The Copenhagen leads toward Anti-God and the Consistent histories approach and the Many-worlds/string-theory interpretation lead Rationally toward God.